My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003_0630_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2003
>
2003_0630_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2011 3:02:21 PM
Creation date
10/21/2011 2:49:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
119
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1! FI I F <br />Protecting Discretionary lmmunit.-U <br />For many if not most cities, dealing with the cent budget problem will mean cutting <br />back — reducing some city services, possibly elimrnatrng other s�c altogether, <br />delaying or eliminating nnprovernents, etc. In some cases, service cutbacks will increase <br />the risk that accidents will occur, resulting in damage to members of the public. That in <br />tarn could mean more claun.s against the city for those damages. For example; <br />Reducing the frequency of sewer maintenance and/or inspection may increase the risk <br />of sewer back -ups. <br />Delaying a sidewalk reconstruction project may increase the risk that someone will <br />trip and fall because of a hole, crack, or i regula * ty in the sidewalk. <br />Changing the standard for when the snowplows go out — saga front a " snowfall to a <br />4" snowfall -- may increase the risk of traffic accidents. <br />Reducing playground maintenance and inspection may increase the risk of injuries <br />caused by hazards that night develop with playground equipment. <br />Reducing police or fire staff may increase their response time in emergencies,, <br />potentially resulting in increased injuries or property damage. <br />Eliminating or reducing the frequency of inspections of daycare facilities may <br />increase the risk of injuries to children from abuse or negligence <br />Minnesota courts and the statutes recognize that cities must sometimes make these kinds <br />of very difficult decisions. They also -recognize that these decisions should appropriately <br />be nude by the city officials, and not by the courts. And they recognize that if the city <br />and city officials were to be held liable for damages resulting from these kinds of <br />decisions, the courts and not the city officials would be the real decision - makers. <br />Discretionary immunity means that the city and city officials cannot be field liable for the <br />city's discretionary decisions. A good working definition is that a discretionary deeision <br />is a planning level decision that involves a balancing o social, political, economic, and <br />safety considerations. Discretionary immunity helps assure that these decisions on how <br />w <br />best to use the city's united resources can and will be made by the city officials elected <br />for that purpose — not by the courts in a lawsuit. <br />Discretionary immunity is an extrr-rnely important protection for the city. But to receive <br />that protection from liability, it has to be clear to the coup that the city was in fact <br />making a discretionary decision. As city Officials make the very difficult but necessary <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.